New Rulebook FAQ

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Valhallan42nd**

I haven't seen any buzz about this, but there's a new FAQ for the Rulebook up at GW US.

from my blog:http://adeptusorlandicus.blogspot.com/2008/10/faq-news-december-doubles-naughty-and.html

By now, you've all heard of the new Dark Angel's FAQ, but I've heard no mention on the intertubes of the new October Rulebook FAQ.

There is a clarification of Multi-combat, that now stipulates that if your unit is being attacked by two units, but a particular model is only in base contact with one, then that model has to throw its attacks to the unit it's base contact with. Which makes sense.

Shooting Psyhic powers from a Vehicle: Do you need LoS? Then you need a fire point in a vehicle to target another unit. No lashing from your Land Raider, kids.

Vehicle turrets etc, can block LOS from other guns firing from the same vehicle.

Note to Guard and BT players... No sharing transports, since your codex says no. Codex > Rulebook. And an IG Command Squad is two KPs, confirmed as per the FAQ.

**carmachu**

Note to Guard and BT players... No sharing transports, since your codex says no. Codex > Rulebook. And an IG Command Squad is two KPs, confirmed as per the FAQ.

Makes no sense. Thats ONLY for new editions. 5e rule book comes out.....then 3 months later the space marine codex comes out, their book trumps rule book.

Old codex for 4e rules.....5th come along, I assume they dont also have to follow the universal rules for feel no pain or hit and run or whatever?

**Raxor**

Why did you link to your blog instead of the FAQ in question?

**biztheclown**

Some interesting stuff. The biggest change I think is turbo-boosting scout moves, which is powerful.

Mostly the rest is one big confirmation that the codex trumps the rulebook.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019&start=3

**Valhallan42nd**

1. Because I thought GW got pissy when the FAQ was directly linked.

2. You all know how to find it by now, and your fingers aren't broken.

**Aduro**

Surprisingly short FAQ I think.

**wyomingfox**

Note to Guard and BT players... No sharing transports, since your codex says no. Codex > Rulebook. And an IG Command Squad is two KPs, confirmed as per the FAQ.

Hillarious

. Just goes to show that clarifying rules in a codex can be a bad thing. Too bad that IG will be getting a codex revision soon though, rather than having to live with 5th editions growing inconsistancies.

**JohnHwangDD**

As expected, no surprises.

That said, I hope GW revises the IG Command Squads for the next Codex.

**wyomingfox**

Also noticed that they bothered to FAQ fleet + vehicle disembark = NO assault

**liljeremyd**

When did this get published? I wish I had this at the Ard Boyz on Saturday since it addresses turbo boosting during Scout moves and multiple combats. I was overruled on both by the judges, but I was right both times. Figures.

**Mordantos**

Valhallan42nd wrote:1. Because I thought GW got pissy when the FAQ was directly linked.

2. You all know how to find it by now, and your fingers aren't broken.

Apparently not just GW

But thank you for bringing the FAQ to attention.

**warpcrafter**

They left out the most obvious question, one that must have been asked VERY frequently, which is "What the f

k were you thinking when you wrote this steaming pile of dreck?"

**don_mondo**

liljeremyd wrote:When did this get published? I wish I had this at the Ard Boyz on Saturday since it addresses turbo boosting during Scout moves and multiple combats. I was overruled on both by the judges, but I was right both times. Figures.

Well, it wasn't there Friday when I pulled the new Dark Angels one for our Ard Boyz. So I'm guessing today...............

**The Everliving**

When did this get published? I wish I had this at the Ard Boyz on Saturday since it addresses turbo boosting during Scout moves and multiple combats. I was overruled on both by the judges, but I was right both times. Figures.

You and me both. Would have prevented my final opponent from embarking a 5-man Templar squad into a dead unit's Crusader to escape a terminator charge, which ultimately allowed him to stop me getting a massacre in the final game...

**Black Blow Fly**

wyomingfox wrote:Also noticed that they bothered to FAQ fleet + vehicle disembark = NO assault

+1 KP to GW for maintaining balance. Another for the timely turn around.

G

**Rbb**

A 42" assault on turn one for Raven Wing? Way to swing the power pendulum GW.

**NaZ**

..and thank you GW for NOT clarifying if a tank shock is a ram and vice versa!

way to go there!

we'll just have to keep asking that question at every frakin tournament until they bother to fix it.

atleast the last GT set a precedent that it really goes that way

NaZ

**Savnock**

warpcrafter wrote:They left out the most obvious question, one that must have been asked VERY frequently, which is "What the f k were you thinking when you wrote this steaming pile of dreck?"

Gotta disagree strongly with you there, buddy. This is a really well-crafted core ruleset, especially when compared to previous editions- simple, fairly consistent, makes for balanced play based on objectives rather than just kill 'em all (well, less then 4th), and while wound allocation slows it down a bit, the rest of the game is quite fast now. It's the codices that tend to bite IMO.

Back on-topic, that tank shock thing is serious enough to merit an email write-in flood to make them answer it somewhere public.

Finally- does the turbo-boosting Scout move make Scout bikers worth taking?

**NaZ**

makes deffkoptas kinda broken I think. oh yeah I'll start behind your tank, regardless of not coming in from outflank.

NaZ

**JohnHwangDD**

@Savnock: The problem is that a lot of players still want to play 4th Edition min-max VP denial, but are frustrated that things like KPs don't make it easy for them.

**Black Blow Fly**

Agreed & QFT.

G

**Jayden63**

NaZ wrote:makes deffkoptas kinda broken I think. oh yeah I'll start behind your tank, regardless of not coming in from outflank.

NaZ

Makes my difficult choice of dethcopters vs buggies a lot easier to make.

**Hollismason**

Notice it says cannot move within 12 during their move. So I mean that is helpful you cant zoom past troops into a unoccupied part of the deployment zone at least.

**padixon**

They also settled the argument of the supper ramming wave serpent/falcon as well. Max str is 10 on ramming.

**strange_eric**

padixon wrote:They also settled the argument of the supper ramming wave serpent/falcon as well. Max str is 10 on ramming.

super ramming? Are we talking about using Star Engines? The thing that can only be used in the shooting phase, not the movement phase?

Honestly, the FAQ was ok till I hit the guard part. And then i wept. And then saw the retardation of the BT ruling about transports.
This is right up there with the old Hordes of Chaos FAQ that said Khorne's mark of Frenzy didn't apply to the mount due to some magical mushrooms the staff had earlier.

C'mon GW I REALLY want to believe in you.... :/

**Noisy_Marine**

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?

A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

I smell more laziness! When is the new Nid book coming out?

**Moopy**

This is the first time that an older codex (Guard, BT) have trumped newer rules. Normally it's the other way around.

**H.B.M.C.**

It is astonishing that people never call John to task on the stuff he dribbles out onto these forums, but if someone has the hide to question or criticise GW, they're 'whining'.

BYE

**Savnock**

Hollismason wrote:Notice it says cannot move within 12 during their move. So I mean that is helpful you cant zoom past troops into a unoccupied part of the deployment zone at least.

Funny, looks like deployment will have to take this into account when fighting Orks. A lot like Apocalypse, that CYA, no 12" gaps deployment.

Did anyone think that things were broken _without_ turbo in scout moves? This seems like another random, arbitrary ruling, kind of off-the-cuff and not in the tested set.

**Pariah Press**

H.B.M.C. wrote:It is astonishing that people never call John to task on the stuff he dribbles out onto these forums

Nobody wants to step on your toes, HBMC.